Benchmark: 2's math pow vs shift vs exp random num

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(2,Math.floor(Math.random() * 64));
shift
var y = 1 << Math.floor(Math.random() * 64)
Exponentiation
var y = 2 ** Math.floor(Math.random() * 64)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
shift
Exponentiation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark.

**Overview**

The test cases are designed to compare the performance of three different ways to calculate the power of 2:

1. `Math.pow(2, x)`
2. `1 << x` (bit shift)
3. `2 ** x` (exponentiation)

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared for each test case are:

* `pow`: using the `Math.pow` function
* `shift`: using the bit shift operator (`<<`)
* `Exponentiation`: using the exponentiation operator (`**`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Math.pow(2, x)**:
	* Pros: straightforward and easy to understand, works for any base and exponent.
	* Cons: may be slower due to its iterative nature.
2. **1 << x (bit shift)**:
	* Pros: typically faster than `Math.pow` because it's a single operation that doesn't involve iteration.
	* Cons: only works for powers of 2, which might not cover the entire range of possible inputs.
3. **2 ** x (exponentiation)**:
	* Pros: often faster than `Math.pow` and can handle non-integer exponents.
	* Cons: requires support for exponentiation operator (`**`) in JavaScript, which may not be available in older browsers.

**Library Used**

None of the test cases use a specific library. However, it's worth noting that the `Math.pow`, `<<`, and `**` operators are all part of the standard JavaScript Math object.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (Not Applicable)**

There is no special feature or syntax used in these test cases.

**Other Considerations**

When running benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Browser version and platform support
* System configuration and resource availability
* Optimizations enabled by the browser (e.g., just-in-time compilation)
* Test case noise and variability

**Alternatives**

To compare these approaches, you could also test other methods for calculating powers of 2, such as:

* Using a lookup table or cache to store pre-calculated values
* Implementing a custom binary exponentiation algorithm
* Using a third-party library that provides optimized exponentiation functions

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on your performance requirements and constraints.

Overall, this benchmark helps identify which method is fastest for calculating powers of 2, with implications for algorithms and applications that require similar computations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 15 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	3547826.0 Ops/sec
shift	5240352.0 Ops/sec
Exponentiation	5137748.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

2's math pow vs shift vs exp random num (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs shift vs Exponentiation

Created: 15 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

shift

Exponentiation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 days ago):